♦ nivek ♦ Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Obama and ACORN "Barry" Obama is not "clean and squeaky". ANYONE that rises up the political system in Daley's Chicago is bought, paid for and delivered... Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Anti-Capitalist Socialist Pretender Marxists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Now that the subject of SC nominations has come up... Barry nominating judges scares the SHIT out of me. I don't know that McCain would be any better, and I don't think I'll take a chance on that being so, but HOT DAMN Obama would stack the court with Marxists. That is not a pleasing proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Wow a Constitutional professor or a Fundy Religious zealot... I dunno who I want picking the judges either. You guys have lost your minds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Brain addled geezer ready for retirement or a dedicated marxist.. "None of the Above" wins my vote... Folks don't see that voting for President this season is kicking the carcass of whats left of the Republic. If voting makes one feel better, that's fine with me. *I* don't need a new playground proctor. TBH I'm all FOR Barry taking the Seat. Rest of my reply doesn't need to taint the innocent sheeps mind... kL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 QUOTE (chefranden @ Aug 31 2008, 04:38 PM) *Bingo. This is politics. It's about power not truth. However, let's not kid ourselves. The Democratic Party has not more interest in the bill of rights than the Republican Party. I predict that we will see nothing restored under Obama and the trend of rights abatement will continue under the guise of "The Holy War On Terror". The real threat to the Government is not a couple of Arabs with a coffee can full of C4 and nails. It is plain old Joe & Jill average American mad at the real sources of their misery. Let no one think that having the Dems back in power means that the good guys are back. Yes, I'm afraid Chef is right on this one. The US prison population continued to soar at breakneck speed under Bill Clinton. And to address the OP...it was, as the article says, and "Interfaith Gathering", not the main event of the DNC. You don't go to an NRA meeting talking about gun control unless you're anti, you don't go to an AA meeting offering to buy the first round, you don't protest at abortion clinics...you just don't. Points off for bad form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Whatever, you bunch o' whiners. I am proud to vote for Obama and excited at the prospect of his appointing judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Personally, I think that gridlock is the best situation we can hope for... and I think Obama is just the agent of gridlock that we need right now. He'll ensure that the SCOTUS isn't stacked with right-wing nutjobs. I sincerely hope he'll at least put off our pending invasion of Iran. Granted, with a Dem majority in both houses and a Dem president, he'll likely push through some socialism and gun control. But the Republicans are MASTERS of gridlock, especially when they're in the minority. They spent decades as a minority... it's ingrained in the party's culture. I'll be counting on them to do what they do best. But even if the Dems are successful- when the choice is between war and socialism... at least socialism doesn't get hundreds of thousands of people killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 The problem with the current election is that it looks to be another "lesser of two evils" type election. On one side you have the religious fundies. And on the other, someone who wants to continue the policies that George Bush had of discriminating against non-religious charities. He also wants to see gay marriage banned because of the Bible, although he is open to 'civil unions' go figure...same thing. You have 2 candidates who apparently both believe very strongly in a 2,000 year-old book of myths, or at least claim to for the sake of politics. I'm not particularly crazy about either of them for that reason; I'm less crazy about McCain than Obama. My ideal president would be one who is strong enough and confident enough to say he believes in reason, and screw the evangelists. Or at the very least, not tout his or her religion or use superstition to make decisions. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon. I'm seriously planning on casting a protest vote this year unless something drastic happens during the debates. We need a dark horse candidate to write in, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Arguing from an optimistic Pollyana Perspective: Even us ExChristians can't agree on a single candidate- or even narrow it down to two. So there will never be a single candidate that can even come close to adequately representing the interests of most people. As long as there's a diversity of viewpoints here in Amerika, the choice will ALWAYS be the lesser of two evils for MOST people. I'm not particularly happy about this... but I can't think of a better system off the top of my head. I'm not sure I believe all that. But it kinda makes me feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Isk - www.lneilsmith.org First, click the link up top to Big Head Press and read "The Probability Broach." Then, read the "Lever Action Essays." The "better system" has been known for close to three hundred years, becoming most possible in the past thirty-odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Valgier- I'm not about to read an on-line political novel. Ain't gonna happen. Nor am I interested in those hundred and fifty or so gun-totin' Libertarian essays. I'm familiar with the concepts. I've preached them, myself... and still agree with most of them. So do you have anything to contribute to this discussion other than 'government sucks'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Um... that's the whole point. Unless you're a democrat, in which case I can't particularly argue with you - you're beyond reason. Also, I wouldn't recommend the book if it wasn't a good read. Individualists versus Hamiltonians set against a promising futuristic backdrop - Smith easily falls into my top three sci-fi authors. Nice guy, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Ok, I'll be more specific. This was my claim: Even us ExChristians can't agree on a single candidate- or even narrow it down to two. So there will never be a single candidate that can even come close to adequately representing the interests of most people. As long as there's a diversity of viewpoints here in Amerika, the choice will ALWAYS be the lesser of two evils for MOST people. I'm not particularly happy about this... but I can't think of a better system off the top of my head. I'm not sure I believe all that. But it kinda makes me feel better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm gonna distill your response to: "government sucks"... and 'Libertarians propose a better system'. So how does this address the "lesser of two evils" problem? Unless you really think that you'll convert the majority of Amerikans to your way of thinking... then it doesn't. MOST people will still disagree with you, and a Libertarian candidate will AT BEST be a 'lesser of two evils'. It's a problem that's inherent to anything akin to democracy. Your personal preference for Libertarian politics doesn't address it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Alright, that I can respond to. I'm not endorsing Libertarian candidates for a couple of reasons. Firstly, their nominee, Bob Barr, is a Republican. Period. I don't buy his "sudden conversion," I think it's a political ploy to resurrect his dying career. Secondly, the party hasn't supported a REAL Libertarian in a long time. A Libertarian, properly defined, would be one who does not under ANY circumstance support the initiation of force against anyone at any time. The LP at the moment is mostly pro-gun Democrats and anti-war Republicans. Very few of them are willing to take their position to its logical conclusion and be anti-GOVERNMENT candidates. I agree that it's a problem with democracy, and I'm not advocating Libertarian politics within a democratic system - I'm saying that the democratic system is bullshit. My rights, your rights, a woman's rights, a Christian's rights or an atheist's rights - none of these things are subject to the whim of the majority. Now, if we can use nonviolent (electoral) means to make that idea the working policy of the country, then I'm all for it. I don't want to pass a single law restricting anyone's liberty - hell, I don't want to pass a single LAW. I'd like to see millions of them REPEALED. The Libertarian party has become something like the Objectivist party. They kowtow to individual rights and blah blah blah, but they still "recognize" the authority of some sort of elected group over the people who did not elect them. They still support the idea that there's some way to justify initiated force by claiming that, as a government, they hold a "monopoly on force." As far as I can see, that's pure and simple fascism. You could call me a "small l" Libertarian, if you would like, since I have no official affiliation with the party, and I suppose that would be partly right. However, I consider myself a Libertarian in the same way that one would be either a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist; it's not a political association but a philosophical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Whatever, you bunch o' whiners. I am proud to vote for Obama and excited at the prospect of his appointing judges. You have my sympathies..... Look at the Supreme Court. Who will be the next couple to go? Not Alito, not Roberts, not Scalia (unless high-fat diets do some magic; one can only hope). No, a couple of left-leaners will go first. All Obama's first two appointments will do is to maintain the current balance. The third one might restore the pre-O'Connor retirement balance. The fourth might move the SCOTUS to the left. When was the last time a president got to name four Supreme Court justices? Hmm? Therefore, I don't see how one can worry about his appointments, unless one would prefer to see more of the likes of the three aforementioned conservative justices and the court swinging far to the right of American opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I don't think you understand....I am solidly and seriously against both tickets. If I could find a way to trash and destroy both, I would do it. I want to see the American voting populace ready to litterally spit in the face of both tickets and pull the lever for a 3rd party...REALLY!!! BO, Until that ticket amounts to more then 3% of the voting public you only have choice A or B... maybe one day we'll have real choice C but this election is not that time IMO. Out of Choice A or B, I'll go with Choice A) Obama.. for a huge multitude of reasons. No he's not any sort of Savior, but he's boatloads better then Choice B(ush the 3rd with the Fundy VP Pick) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I agree that it's a problem with democracy, and I'm not advocating Libertarian politics within a democratic system - I'm saying that the democratic system is bullshit. My rights, your rights, a woman's rights, a Christian's rights or an atheist's rights - none of these things are subject to the whim of the majority. Now, if we can use nonviolent (electoral) means to make that idea the working policy of the country, then I'm all for it. I don't want to pass a single law restricting anyone's liberty - hell, I don't want to pass a single LAW. I'd like to see millions of them REPEALED. So your solution is to abstain from political participation and spam political discussions with your repettitive 'government sucks' mantra... until the day comes where everybody suddenly comes around to your way of thinking? Good luck with that. It's gonna be a long wait. Look at the Supreme Court. Who will be the next couple to go? Not Alito, not Roberts, not Scalia (unless high-fat diets do some magic; one can only hope). No, a couple of left-leaners will go first. All Obama's first two appointments will do is to maintain the current balance. The third one might restore the pre-O'Connor retirement balance. The fourth might move the SCOTUS to the left. When was the last time a president got to name four Supreme Court justices? Hmm? Therefore, I don't see how one can worry about his appointments, unless one would prefer to see more of the likes of the three aforementioned conservative justices and the court swinging far to the right of American opinion. Good point. My Obama-mania just went half a notch higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 No he's not any sort of Savior, but he's boatloads better then Choice B(ush the 3rd with the Fundy VP Pick) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 So what? I don't see either as better than the other. I am going to write in Ron Paul and no matter who wins, I can at least look in the mirror and know I did not vote for the calamity that is to come. If no body likes it, they can kiss my ass..... Yeah.. I'll pass thanks As always, Your vote make it count................. Or not.. It's yours to do or not do as you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 The Libertarian party has become something like the Objectivist party. They kowtow to individual rights and blah blah blah, but they still "recognize" the authority of some sort of elected group over the people who did not elect them. They still support the idea that there's some way to justify initiated force by claiming that, as a government, they hold a "monopoly on force." As far as I can see, that's pure and simple fascism. You could call me a "small l" Libertarian, if you would like, since I have no official affiliation with the party, and I suppose that would be partly right. However, I consider myself a Libertarian in the same way that one would be either a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist; it's not a political association but a philosophical one. Admittedly I'm not up on all the Libertarian rhetoric but isn't that more of Anarchism? Not saying that's a bad thing it just sounds more like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 No he's not any sort of Savior, but he's boatloads better then Choice B(ush the 3rd with the Fundy VP Pick) LR... < sigh > I think you need to turn off the GOP Propaganda.. He has never once said he was a savior or insinuated as such. This is just flamebait IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 He has never once said he was a savior or insinuated as such. I just liked that picture Japedo. Felt like I needed to share it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I agree that it's a problem with democracy, and I'm not advocating Libertarian politics within a democratic system - I'm saying that the democratic system is bullshit. My rights, your rights, a woman's rights, a Christian's rights or an atheist's rights - none of these things are subject to the whim of the majority. Now, if we can use nonviolent (electoral) means to make that idea the working policy of the country, then I'm all for it. I don't want to pass a single law restricting anyone's liberty - hell, I don't want to pass a single LAW. I'd like to see millions of them REPEALED. So your solution is to abstain from political participation and spam political discussions with your repettitive 'government sucks' mantra... until the day comes where everybody suddenly comes around to your way of thinking? Good luck with that. It's gonna be a long wait. No, I'm not concerned with how other people vote. Obama will not pass a single law that will affect me; neither would McCain. I'm hoping people start using their brains instead of their guts and make the same decision, they'll be much better off for it. I'm already free, it's you guys I'm worried about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts